switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: 1 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... Last
[#] Fri Sep 18 2009 16:50:17 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Sounds like Ford's "smart pointer" all over again. What was the smart

pointer theorem? Something like, every programming environment will
eventually degrade in design until it sucks so hard that somebody
invents the smart pointer?

They hint at it don't they... "since C++ doesn't have reference counts..."

[#] Fri Sep 18 2009 17:00:56 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

erm, reference coounts? I thought everyone knew that reference counts were insufficiently general to be included as a central language construct. that's downright weird...

[#] Sat Sep 19 2009 12:57:24 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm more upset by the fact that they felt they needed to introduce language extensions for something that is clearly a system API.

Yes, I know they said "Without a pervasive approach such as GCD, even the best-written application cannot deliver the best possible performance, because it doesn’t have full insight into everything else happening in the system" but I'm just not buying it.

Not to mention, by making the language itself proprietary, they're making it even more difficult to write portable applications.  Sure, sometimes you want your software to have "Macness" but much of the time you just want it to work everywhere.

*sigh*  Are there C bindings for Qt yet?

[#] Sat Sep 19 2009 13:11:59 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm more upset by the fact that they felt they needed to introduce language

extensions for something that is clearly a system API.

I was thinking that too. That was the first thing that struck me, but the way it's written, it's not actually part of the language, it's functions that are part of the spec, and the spec is more than just about the language.
Sort of. They're making it kind of grey. The code blocks are part of the language the threading functions are part of the GCD spec. If they say the gcd spec is an extension to C, that's not exactly entirely true.
It's more semantics for an argument I guess.
But the reality is if you implement GCD (or they make it part of the C standard) then it might as well be considered part of the language since you HAVE to do it to be compliant.
But it's not a syntax thing per se.

[#] Mon Sep 21 2009 22:49:49 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

right now, the point is moot. no other systrem supports this, so if you build something that requires it -- and regardless of the syntax used to implement it, it is inherently so different from traditioanl threading that you are not going to write a program that can run with either GCD or pthreads -- then you are limited to OS X.

[#] Tue Sep 22 2009 07:03:43 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

but isn't that true of pretty much anything you write for the mac/iphone anyway?

[#] Tue Sep 22 2009 14:06:18 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

there are a number of techniques to write portable code, even GUI code, that runs on all of Linux, OS X, and Windows. GCD is not one of them.

[#] Tue Sep 22 2009 16:58:36 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

*evil grin*


[#] Tue Sep 22 2009 17:24:33 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Di Sep 22 2009 16:58:36 EDT von fleeb @ Uncensored

*evil grin*

Yea, compile once debug everywhere...

[#] Tue Sep 22 2009 20:26:49 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'll never forget the title of the article "How to port your java applications to AIX."

[#] Wed Sep 23 2009 09:42:24 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I must admit that modern Java applications do look and act a lot nicer than they did back in the day when Sun first began touting "write once, run anywhere."

User expectations are also a bit different now. No one complains anymore when an application appears on the screen with slightly different chrome than "native" apps.

[#] Wed Sep 23 2009 17:59:34 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

cut'n' paste won't work as expected, (sometimes...)

focus management inside of the application won't always work as expected...

and so on and so on.

Java apps still feel like aliens. everywhere. (at least everywhere i've met them...)

[#] Wed Sep 23 2009 18:00:35 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


    Long time Pythoneer Tim Peters succinctly channels the BDFL's
guiding principles for Python's design into 20 aphorisms, only 19
of which have been written down.

The Zen of Python

    Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!

saw that recently.

[#] Wed Sep 23 2009 18:56:35 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

Subject: howto start a flamewar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

except about editors:

target some version controll system written in C, moan about its code flexibility and design errors, and rewrite it in perl because of "the code is better readable" and call it cupt instead of apt.

[#] Thu Sep 24 2009 11:59:58 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The Zen of Python

Too bad none of that applies to python.

[#] Fri Sep 25 2009 17:26:29 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Python does some nice stuff, but I just can't get past the forced-indentation thing.

[#] Sat Sep 26 2009 13:49:48 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Forced indentation isn't new to programming, if I remember correctly.

I think some other languages had the same quirk.  I think I remember some assemblers that used to be a little twitchy about indentation, and I'm not entirely sure COBOL is free of it.

[#] Sat Sep 26 2009 18:06:40 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That may be true, but does it belong in a programming language that began life in the late 1980's, long after other programming languages established the convention of using brackets and braces for enclosing code blocks?

I'm familiar with the arguments in favor of indentation. And, I understand them. They're valid arguments. I just don't agree with them.

[#] Sun Sep 27 2009 07:40:55 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I just take each language for their idiosyncrasies and move on.  If the language can accomplish my goals, I live with their problems.

Except Perl, of course.


[#] Sun Sep 27 2009 17:14:15 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, I think perl is the only language in which I've forgotten more about it than I ever knew.

Go to page: 1 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... Last